MEDIA CONSUMPTION AND PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD CRIME AND
JUSTICE: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEAR OF CRIME, PUNITIVE ATTITUDES, AND
PERCEIVED POLICE EFFECTIVENESS

by

Kenneth Dowler
Department of Criminal Justice
California State University at Bakersfield

ABSTRACT

Public knowledge of crime and justice is largely derived
from the media. This paper examines the influence of media consumption on
fear of crime, punitive attitudes and perceived police effectiveness. This
research contributes to the literature by expanding knowledge on the
relationship between fear of crime and media consumption. This study also
contributes to limited research on the mediaís influence on punitive
attitudes, while providing a much-needed analysis of the relationship
between media consumption and satisfaction with the police. Employing OLS
regression, the results indicate that respondents who are regular viewers of
crime drama are more likely to fear crime. However, the relationship is
weak. Furthermore, the results indicate that gender, education, income, age,
perceived neighborhood problems and police effectiveness are statistically
related to fear of crime. In addition, fear of crime, income, marital
status, race, and education are statistically related to punitive attitudes.
Finally, age, fear of crime, race, and perceived neighborhood problems are
statistically related to perceived police effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION

Western society is fascinated with crime and justice. From films,
books, newspapers, magazines, television broadcasts, to everyday conversations,
we are constantly engaging in crime "talk". The mass media play an
important role in the construction of criminality and the criminal justice
system. The publicís perception of victims, criminals, deviants, and law
enforcement officials is largely determined by their portrayal in the mass
media. Research indicates that the majority of public knowledge about crime and
justice is derived from the media (Roberts and Doob, 1990; Surette, 1998).
Therefore, it is imperative to examine the effects that the mass media have on
attitudes toward crime and justice. The purpose of this research is to examine
how the media influences audience perceptions of police effectiveness and to
examine whether media consumption is related to fear of crime and punitive
justice attitudes.

FEAR OF CRIME AND PUNITIVE JUSTICE ATTITUDES

Research on the effect that the media has on the public revolves around two
interconnected issues. Does coverage of sensationalistic and violent crime
create fear among the general public and does this fear influence criminal
justice policy attitudes? Review of the [End page 109] research
indicates that there are mixed results regarding the influence of the news
media on creating an attitude of fear among the general public (Surette,
1998). In an early study, Gerbner et al (1980) hypothesized that heavy viewing
of television violence leads to fear rather than aggression. Gerbner et al
(1980) find that individuals who watch a large amount of television are more
likely to feel a greater threat from crime, believe crime is more prevalent
than statistics indicate, and take more precautions against crime. They find
that crime portrayed on television is significantly more violent, random, and
dangerous than crime in the "real" world. The researchers argue that
viewers internalize these images and develop a "mean world view" or
a scary image of reality. This view is characterized by "mistrust,
cynicism, alienation, and perceptions of higher than average levels of threat
of crime in society" (Surette, 1990:8). Further studies on the
relationship between fear and television viewing indicate a direct and strong
relationship (Barille, 1984; Bryant, Carveth and Brown, 1981; Hawkins and
Pingree, 1980; Morgan, 1983; Williams, Zabrack and Joy, 1982, Weaver and
Wakshlag, 1986). Conversely, Rice and Anderson (1990) find a weak, positive
association between television viewing and fear of crime, alienation and
distrust. However, multiple regression analysis fails to support the
hypothesis that television viewing has a direct, substantial effect on fear of
crime.

In a review of the research, Heath and Gilbert (1996) find that the
relationship between media presentations and crime is dependent on
characteristics of the message and the audience. Presentation of large amounts
of local crime news engenders increased fear among the larger public, (Brillon,
1987; Sheley and Ashkins, 1981) while the presentation of large amounts of
non-local crime news has the opposite effect by making the local viewers feel
safe in comparison to other areas (Liska and Baccaglini, 1990). In addition
Chiricos et al (2000) finds that local and national news are related to fear
of crime. The effect of local news on fear of crime is stronger for residents
in high crime areas and those who experienced victimization.

In terms of audience effects, fear of victimization will depend on who is
viewing the crime stories. Research indicates that residents in high crime
urban areas who watch a large amount of television are more likely to be
afraid of crime (Doob and MacDonald, 1979; Gerbner et al, 1980). Another
important factor is whether audience members have direct victim experience or
share characteristics that make them crime vulnerable. Research indicates that
media sources will be more meaningful when direct experience is lacking
(Gunter, 1987; Liska and Baccaglini, 1990; Skogan and Maxfield, 1981). For
example, Liska and Baccaglini (1990) find that media influence was strongest
for females, whites and the elderly, which are segments of the population
least likely to be victimized. In another study, Chiricos et al (1997) find
that the frequency of watching television news and listening to the news on
the radio is significantly related to fear. Their research indicates that
television news consumption is significantly related to fear only for white
females between the ages of 30 and 44. This is similar to other findings that
suggest that watching crime on television has a greater effect for women and
whites, who have low victim risk compared to males and non whites (Gerbner et
al., 1980).

Examining the National Opinion on Crime and Justice (NOCJS), Haghighi and
Sorensen (1996) find that local media attention to crime was significantly
related to fear of sexual assault; getting mugged, beaten up, knifed or shot;
and being burglarized while at home. Fear of crime was not significantly
related to fear of car-jacking, being murdered, or being burglarized while not
at home. However, they did not find the source of crime news to be a factor in
fear of crime. For example, those who received their crime news from radio,
newspapers or television had [End page 110] similar levels of worry about crime. In addition,
their findings indicate that crime show viewers were more likely to worry
about being sexually assaulted; getting beaten up, knifed or shot; and getting
killed. However, crime-drama viewing is not related to fear of car jacking,
mugging, or burglary.

Researchers argue that public fear and anxiety is inextricably connected
with public pressure for solutions to crime problems. A number of research
studies focus on whether media depictions of crime influence public attitudes
towards criminal justice policy. They find that presentations of crime news
increase public pressure for more effective policing (Garofalo, 1981a) and
more punitive responses to crime (Barille, 1984; Surette, 1998). Furthermore,
Surette (1998:) claims that the news media feature agents of crime control as
negatively ineffective and incompetent which results in support for more
police, more prisons, and more money for the criminal justice system. Reith
(1999) finds that for white males, crime show viewing is related to high
levels of aggression towards those who break the law, and low levels against
those who defend it. She also found that fear of victimization and fear of
victimization based on real life experiences did not have a mediating effect
on the relationship. In addition, Oliver and Armstrong (1995) find that
frequent viewing and greater enjoyment of reality-based crime shows are
related to holding punitive attitudes. However, frequent viewing and greater
enjoyment of fictional crime shows are not related to holding punitive
attitudes.

POLICE EFFECTIVENESS

Public attitudes toward police are generally positive (Huang and Vaughn,
1996). However, there are few studies that examine the mediaís influence on
public ratings of police effectiveness. Much of the literature focuses on
media portrayals of police officers and findings reveal two conflicting views.
Some researchers argue that the police are presented favorably in the media,
while other research suggests that the police are negatively portrayed in the
media.

Presentations of police are often over-dramatized and romanticized by
fictional television crime dramas while the news media portray the police as
heroic, professional crime fighters (Surette, 1998; Reiner, 1985). In
television crime dramas, the majority of crimes are solved and criminal
suspects are successfully apprehended (Dominick, 1973; Estep and MacDonald,
1984; Carlson, 1985; Kooistra et al. 1998, Zillman and Wakshlag, 1985).
Similarly, news accounts tend to exaggerate the proportion of offenses that
result in arrest which projects an image that police are more effective than
official statistics demonstrate (Sacco and Fair, 1988; Skogan and Maxfield,
1981; Marsh, 1991; Roshier, 1973). The favorable view of policing is partly a
consequence of policeís public relations strategy. Reporting of proactive
police activity creates an image of the police as effective and efficient
investigators of crime (Christensen, Schmidt and Henderson, 1982).
Accordingly, a positive police portrayal reinforces traditional approaches to
law and order that involves increased police presence, harsher penalties and
increasing police power (Sacco, 1995).

In addition, a number of researchers suggest that a symbiotic relationship
exists between news media personnel and the police. It is suggested that the
police and the media engage in a mutually beneficial relationship. The media
needs the police to provide them with quick, reliable sources of crime
information, while the police have a vested interest in maintaining a positive
public image (Ericson, Baranek, and Chan, 1987; Fishman, 1981; Hall et al,
1978). However, [End page 111] other researchers argue that the police are not portrayed
positively in the news media. For example, Surette (1998) claims that docu-dramas
and news tabloid programs represent the police as heroes that fight evil, yet
print and broadcast news personify the police as ineffective and incompetent.
Likewise, Graber (1980) claims that the general public evaluates police
performance more favorably compared with courts and correction. Nevertheless,
Graber (1980) states that the media provides little information to judge
police and that the news media focus on negative criticism rather than
positive or successful crime prevention efforts. In essence, most media crime
is punished, but policemen are rarely the heroes (Lichter and Lichter, 1983).

Prior research suggests that public knowledge about crime and justice is
largely derived from the media (Roberts and Doob, 1990; Surette, 1998). This
research seeks to build on previous research by addressing three research
questions:

What is the relationship between media consumption and fear of crime?

What is the relationship between media consumption and punitive
attitudes?

What is the relationship between media consumption and public ratings
of police effectiveness?

Police effectiveness, fear of crime and punitive attitudes are important
aspects of public attitudes toward crime and justice in the United States.
First, police strategies reflect departmental values, which reflect community
values. Negative or positive attitudes towards the police may influence police
policy making and strategy. Second, citizen attitudes toward the police may
influence decisions to report crime. Third, both fear of crime and punitive
attitudes may influence policy making and law making by government agencies,
as public support or opposition may determine policy.

METHODS

Sample

The sample is derived from the 1995 National Opinion Survey on Crime and
Justice (NOSCJ). The NOSCJ is a random telephone survey of adults (n= 1005)
who reside in the continental United States. The survey is cross-sectional and
samples are stratified to all U.S. counties in proportion to each countyís
share of the telephone households in the target area. The survey employed
random digit dialing (CATI) and achieved a 62% response rate. The purpose of
the NOSCJ is to provide knowledge about American attitudes toward crime and
justice issues, which may lead to more informed criminal justice policy and
practice. The survey examines a number of issues, such as attitudes toward
courts, police, neighborhood problems, juvenile gangs, drug laws, death
penalty, gun control, prisons, and worries about crime. In addition to basic
demographic characteristics, NOSCJ captures information about hours of
television viewing, crime show viewing and source of crime news. [End page
11]

Measures

Fear/Worry of Crime

Fear of crime is measured using seven items that examine the respondentís
fear/worry toward crime. Respondents are asked if they worry about sexual
assault; car-jacking; getting mugged; getting beaten up, knifed or shot;
getting murdered; being burglarized while at home; and being burglarized while
no one is at home. Each question on worry/fear of crime has a four-category
response ranging from very frequently, somewhat frequently, seldom, and
never.[1] The seven items are scaled to establish an index of fear of crime
that ranges from seven (low worry) to twenty-eight (high worry). Higher scores
indicate a greater amount of fear/worry about crime. Reliability analysis
reveals an alpha of .86, which indicates that the scale is highly consistent.

Perception of Police Effectiveness

Police effectiveness is measured by using seven items that examine the
respondentís attitudes towards police. Three questions address respondentís
confidence in police ability to protect, solve, and prevent crime. Each
question has a four-category response ranging from a great deal, some, little,
and none at all. Three questions address respondentís assessment of police
promptness, friendliness, and fairness. Each question has a five-category
response ranging from very high, high, average, low, and very low. For the
scaling purposes, very low and low were combined into one category. The final
question examines the respondentís belief in the use of excessive force by
police in their community. The category response range from serious problem,
somewhat of a problem, minor problem, and not a problem at all.[2] The seven
items are scaled to establish an index of perceived police effectiveness that
range from seven to twenty-eight. Higher scores indicate positive appraisals
towards police effectiveness and lower scores indicate negative appraisals of
political effectiveness. Reliability analysis reveals an alpha of .83, which
indicates this scale is consistent.

Punitive Justice Attitudes

Punitive justice attitudes are measured by using 11 items. These questions
were categorical in nature and for scaling purposes they were dummy coded.
Table one presents the items that are scaled to identify those who hold
punitive attitudes toward crime and justice.

Table 1: Punitive Attitudes Scale

Item

0

1

Favor government focus on punishment

Yes

No

Favor retribution as the most important sentencing objective for
adults

Yes

No

Favor the Death Penalty

Yes

No

Oppose Parole

Yes

No

Oppose Early Release for Good Behavior

Yes

No

Oppose Shorter Sentences

Yes

No

Favor adult trial for juvenile accused of property crime

Yes

No

Favor adult trial for juvenile accused of drug crime

Yes

No

Favor adult trial for juvenile accused of violent crime

Yes

No

Favor retribution as the most important sentencing objective for
juveniles

Yes

No

Favor Stiffer Sentences for Juveniles

Yes

No

[End page 113]

The scale ranges from 0 (punitive attitudes) to 1 (non-punitive attitudes).
The scores range from 0 (highly punitive) to 11 (non-punitive) and the average
score for respondents is four. The alpha level of punitive attitude scale is
.72, which indicates that this scale is reliable. Nevertheless, one limitation
is equating punitive attitudes with retributive attitudes. Historically, the
notion of retribution meant "an eye for an eye" and emphasized
"harsh" punishment. However, the concept of retribution has evolved
and includes the concept of just deserts. Just deserts require that the nature
of punishment be consistent with the offenderís criminal conduct. The
central principle of just deserts is proportionality; the severity of the
punishment should be proportional to the gravity of the offense. Punitiveness
is more concerned with the prevention and reduction of crime through
deterrence principles (Von Hirsch, 1998). However, it is unclear whether
survey respondents understand the differences between punitiveness and
retribution.

Mass-Media Variables

The media variables include crime-show viewing, television hours and crime
news source. Crime-show viewing is measured by asking respondents if they are
frequent viewers of a television crime show.[3] Television hours are measured
by asking respondents how many hours of television they watched per week.
Finally, respondents were asked the primary source of crime news. The
categories include television, newspaper, radio, and friends/neighbors and are
dummy coded for the analysis. Specifically, the intention is to examine the
print mediaís effect on fear of crime, punitive justice attitudes and
perceived police effectiveness.

Socio-Demographic Measures/Control Variables

A number of control variables are employed in this research to ensure that
media effects are properly measured. Demographic variables such as race,
gender, age, income, residence, level of education, and marital status are
employed in the analysis. Race, income, residence, level of education and
marital status are dummy-coded.[4] In addition, a scale is created to measure
respondentís attitudes toward problems in their neighborhood. Respondents
were asked to rate the seriousness of a number of issues in their
neighborhood. The issues include: trash and litter; loose dogs; unsupervised
youth; graffiti; vacant houses; noise; people drunk/high in public; and
abandoned cars.[5] The scores range from eight to thirty-two. Higher scores
indicate high levels of problems in the neighborhood, whereas lower scores
indicate low levels of problems in the neighborhood. Reliability analysis
reveals an alpha of .81, which indicates a consistent scale.

Analytic Strategy

The analytic strategy is to examine the relationship between media
variables and fear of crime, perceived police effectiveness and punitive
justice attitudes. The first step is to conduct univariate and bivariate
analysis. The next step is to employ multivariate regression models using the
ordinary least squares. Included in the models are the socio-demographic
variables/control variables described above. Three models will be developed to
examine the dependent variables, which will include fear of crime, punitive
justice attitudes and perceived police effectiveness. The first model will
examine the association between crime-show viewing, newspaper as primary
source of crime news, hours of television per week and fear of crime. The [End page
114] control variables will include age, race, residence, marital status, income,
gender, problems in neighborhood, and perception of police effectiveness.

The second model will examine the association between crime-show viewing,
newspapers as primary source of crime news, hours of television viewing and
punitive justice attitudes. We will employ the same control variables as step
one, except that we will include fear of crime as an independent variable. The
final step is to examine the association between crime-show viewing,
newspapers as primary source of crime news, hours of television viewing and
perceived police effectiveness. We will employ age, race, residence, marital
status, income, gender, neighborhood problems, fear of crime and punitive
attitudes as control variables.

Results

Univariate and Bivariate Analysis

Table two presents descriptive statistics of the variables employed in this
study.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

N

%

(Mean)

Punitive Justice Attitudes

Low Fear of Crime

Low Perceived Police Effectiveness

Regular Crime Show Viewer

1005

42.5

.06

-.07*

.09*

Print Media Primary Source

1005

20

-.04

-.05

.01

Hours of Television Viewing

966

(14.95)

-.04

.03

-.04

Low Neighborhood Problems

979

(11.80)

.04

.25**

-.22**

Hispanic

1005

7.7

-.03

-.10**

.07*

White

1005

81.3

.13**

.04

-.18**

Black

1005

7.7

-.13**

.01

.15**

Urban

1005

15.9

-.06

-.09**

.08*

Married

1005

53.1

.09**

-.04

-.08*

High Income (60k or higher)

1005

22.1

-.03

-.04

.02

Medium Income (30k to 60k)

1005

37.2

.01

-.01

-.10**

Low Income (15k to 30k)

1005

25.8

.08*

.02

.04

Lowest Income (15k or lower)

1005

14.9

-.05

.02

.03

College Education

1005

58.2

-.10**

-.08*

-.04

Male

1005

52.1

.03

.14**

.05

Age

994

(45)

-.02

-.12**

.21**

Low Police Effectiveness

1005

(19.91)

-.08*

-.14**

--

Low Fear of Crime

995

(13.65)

-.04

--

-.14**

Punitive Attitudes

1005

(4.09)

--

-.04

-.08*

P*< .05; **P< .01

The results indicate that respondentsí average approximately 15 hours of
television per week, while 42% of the respondents report that they are regular
viewers of crime shows, and that 20% of the respondents report that newspapers
are their main source of crime news. The scaled variables were employed as
both dependent and control variables.[6] The results indicate that on a scale
of seven to twenty-eight, the respondentís average score is 13.65 for fear
of crime and 15 for perceived police effectiveness. On a scale of eight to
thirty-two, the respondents score 11.8 [End page 115] for perceived problems in their
neighborhood. On a scale from 0 to 11, respondents mean score is 4.09 for
punitive attitudes toward crime and justice.

Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample indicate that 7.7% of the
respondents are African-American, 7.7% are Hispanic and 81.4% are white; 53.1%
are married; 52.1% are male; 15.9% are urban residents; 37; the average age is
45; 58.2% are college educated; 22.1% have incomes over $60,000; 37.2% have
incomes between $30,000 and $60,000; 25.8% have incomes between $15,000 and
$30,000; and 14.9% have incomes lower than $15,000.

The results of correlation analysis are also included in table 2. The
results indicate that viewing crime shows is significantly related to fear of
crime and perceived police effectiveness. Regular viewers of crime shows are
more likely to fear or worry about crime. Similarly, regular crime drama
viewers are more likely to hold negative attitudes toward police
effectiveness. The bivariate analysis indicates that newspaper as primary
source of crime news and hours of television viewing are not significantly
related to fear of crime, punitive attitudes or perceived police
effectiveness.

In addition, the results indicate that white, married, and low-income (15k
to 30k) respondents are more likely to have punitive attitudes, whereas black,
college educated, and respondents with low appraisals of police effectiveness
are less likely to have punitive attitudes. The results also indicate that
older respondents, males and respondents with low perception of neighborhood
problems are more likely to have low fear of crime, whereas, younger
respondents, female, Hispanic, college-educated and respondents with low
appraisals of police effectiveness are more likely to fear crime. Finally,
bivariate results suggest that Hispanic, African-American, urban, and younger
respondents are more likely to have negative or low appraisals of police
effectiveness. Conversely, respondents with punitive attitudes, with a medium
income (30k to 60k), older, white, with low perceptions of neighborhood
problems are more likely to have positive or high appraisals of police
effectiveness. However, there may be a number of factors that mitigate or
enhance the relationships. Thus, it is necessary to conduct multivariate
techniques to further address these relationships

Multivariate Analysis

Fear of Crime

Table three presentsí three models based on OLS regression, employing
fear of crime, punitive attitudes, and perceived police effectiveness
regressed on media/control variables.[7]

The findings indicate that crime-show viewing is related to fear of crime.
Respondents who report that they are regular viewers of crime shows are more
likely to be fearful of crime. This is true even when we control for age,
gender, race, income, education, marital status, perceived police
effectiveness and perceived neighborhood problems. However, hours of
television and newspaper as the primary source of crime news are not
significantly related to fear of crime. [End page 116]

In this model, the strongest relationship is perceived problems in the
neighborhood, followed by gender, education, regular viewing of crime shows,
age, income and perceived police effectiveness. Respondents who claim that
there are a high number of problems in their neighborhood are more likely to
fear crime. This is not surprising, as respondents may feel unsafe in an area
that they believe is conducive to crime. Female respondents are also more
likely to fear crime. This is consistent with prior research that shows that
females are more likely to fear or worry about crime (Garofalo, 1981b;
LaGrange and Ferraro, 1989; Parker, 1993; Parker and Ray, 1990; Warr, 1984
Skogan and Maxfield, 1981). College educated respondents are more likely to be
fearful of crime. This result is unanticipated, as we would assume that higher
education would inform subjects about the nature of crime and justice.
However, college educated respondents may feel that they have more to
"lose" if they are victimized. Moreover, regular viewers of crime
drama are more likely to fear crime. Television portrayal of crime and justice
is largely sensational, violent and fear producing. Viewers may receive a
"distorted" image of the typical crime or criminal, which may
produce fear or anxiety about criminal activity. Compared to respondents with
average incomes (30k to 60k), lower income respondents are more likely to fear
crime. This is consistent with prior research, which reveals that low-income
individuals are more likely to fear crime (Will and McGrath, 1995; Skogan and
Maxfield, 1981; Baumer, 1978).

Older respondents are less likely to fear crime, which is not consistent
with prior research (Baldassare, 1986; Garofalo, 1981b; Skogan and Maxfield,
1981; Yin, 1980). Finally, respondents who gave poor ratings of police
performance are more likely to be fearful of crime. [End page 117] These respondents may
believe that police are not effectively protecting the public or their
community.

Punitive Justice Attitudes

Table three presents the results of punitive attitudes regressed on the
media consumption. The findings indicate none of the media consumption
variables are related to punitive attitudes. The strongest indicator of
punitive attitudes is race, followed by education, income, fear of crime, and
marital status. African-American respondents are more likely to hold
non-punitive attitudes. This may be the result of inequalities of the justice
system. For example, compared to whites, African-Americans are more likely to
receive harsher punishments (such as the death penalty) and African-Americans
are disproportionately over- represented in prisons (Reiman, 1998). Some
African-Americans may feel threatened by a punitive justice model or feel that
a punitive justice model reinforces discrimination and persecution of
African-Americans.

In addition, respondents with college education are more likely to hold
non-punitive attitudes. Those with education may be more likely to recognize
the inequalities of the justice system and determine that solutions to the
"crime problem" may be better served by policies of reintegration or
rehabilitation. Furthermore, compared to average income respondents,
low-income respondents (15,000 to 30,000) are more likely to hold punitive
attitudes towards crime and justice. This is in contrast to the lowest income
respondents ($15,000 or less) who hold non-punitive attitudes. One reason for
the difference may be that low income (15,000 to 30,000) respondents are more
likely to bear the brunt of crime and unlike the lowest income ($15,000 or
less) respondents they may feel that they have more to "lose" by
victimization. As a result, low- income respondents may believe that a
punitive ideology is necessary to prevent and reduce crime in the areas in
which they live. Moreover, respondents with a high fear of crime are more
likely to have punitive attitudes. Fear of crime may provide impetus for
support of "get tough" crime policies. Finally, married respondents
are more likely to have punitive attitudes. Married respondents might believe
that they have more to lose if they are victimized (i.e. family and partner)
and support tougher policies toward crime.

Perceived Police Effectiveness

Table three examines perceived police effectiveness regressed on media and
control variables. The findings reveal that none of the media variables are
related to respondentís perceptions of police effectiveness. A possible
explanation is that there is little agreement on the role that police play on
television crime dramas and news reports. Some research suggests that police
are positively portrayed while others show that the police are negatively
portrayed. However, the results indicate that age, perceived problems in the
neighborhood, fear of crime, and race are significantly related to perceived
police effectiveness. Older respondents are more likely have high ratings of
police effectiveness, whereas younger respondents are more likely to have low
ratings of police effectiveness. This is consistent with prior research that
shows that compared to younger persons; the elderly have more favorable
attitudes toward police (Garofalo, 1977; Hindelang, 1974; Thomas and Hyman,
1977).

Respondents who believe that there a high number of problems in their
neighborhood are more likely to rate police effectiveness as being poor.
Respondents may not believe that the local police are not properly fulfilling
their role in the community. Similarly, respondents who have a [End page 118]
high fear of
crime are more likely to give poor ratings to the police. These respondents
may feel that the police are not adequately protecting their communities.

Finally, African-Americans are more likely to hold low ratings of police
effectiveness. This is similar to prior research which suggests that
African-Americans have an antagonistic view of police (Garofalo, 1977) and
that there is a "climate of distrust:" between African-Americans and
law enforcement (Jacob, 1971). However, other studies indicate that residence
and social class mitigate the effect of race. For example, Kusow, Wilson and
Martin (1998) find little support that African-Americans are less satisfied
with police effectiveness. They find that both African-American and white
suburbanites are more satisfied with police performance than African-American
and white urban residents. In addition, Albrecht and Green (1977) find that
low-income African-Americans living in inner cities possess the least
favorable attitudes toward the police. Similarly, Parker, Onyekwuluje and
Murty (1995) find that African-Americans who reside in high crime areas, and
who have low incomes are more likely to have held negative attitudes toward
the police. Nevertheless, controlling for income and residence we find that
African-Americans are significantly more likely to hold unfavorable attitudes
toward police. Waddington and Braddock (1991) find that African-Americans
believe that whites receive preferential police treatment and that
African-Americans are subjects of discrimination. Research indicates that
there is a significant association between being black and being harassed by
police (Browning et al. 1994). Other factors may include an increased
awareness of police corruption, racism, brutality and racial profiling. A
number of significant "social" events occurred during the 1990's.
For example, the beating of Rodney King and the racist remarks of Mark Fuhrman
elevated racism and police brutality into national issues. Finally, we have
seen racial profiling or "driving while black" emerge as an
important social issue.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

This study reveals that regular viewers of crime shows are more likely to
fear crime. Although statistically significant, the strength of this finding
is minimal. In addition, there are a few limitations with regard to the
measures of media consumption. First, the type of crime show that the
respondent is viewing is unknown. There are numerous types of crime shows that
may focus on different aspects of the criminal justice system. For example,
crime shows may focus on police, courts, private investigators, defense
lawyers and sometimes even the criminals. In addition, some shows are more
realistic, while others routinely portray violence, and consistently misinform
viewers about the nature of the criminal justice system and criminality. It
would be prudent to know which dramas the respondents are viewing. Second,
employing television hours watched is problematic, since there is no way of
determining what type of programs the respondent is viewing. There are a
number of different programs that may or may not address criminal justice
issues and address them in substantially different ways. Finally, examining
newspapers as the primary source of crime news suggests that only newspapers
influence respondents. It would be naive to suggest that respondents are not
affected by a number of sources; for example, respondents who receive their
primary crime news from newspapers may also be affected by presentations of
crime from other sources such as films, television and/or personal
experiences. [End page 119]

Fear of Crime

Despite these limitations, there are some interesting results regarding
fear of crime and perceived police effectiveness. Even when controlling for a
number of factors, viewing crime shows is weakly related to fear of crime.
Fear of crime may be "natural" reactions to the violence, brutality,
and "injustice" that are broadcast to living rooms on a daily basis.
Crimes on television shows and films reveal several trends. There is an
overemphasis on crimes of violence and offenders are often portrayed in
stereotypical ways. For example, murder and robbery dominate while property
crimes are rarely presented (Surette, 1998). Offenders are often viewed as
psychopaths that prey on weak and vulnerable victims. In other cases offenders
are portrayed as businessmen or professionals that are shrewd, ruthless, and
violent. Television crime is exciting and a rewarding endeavor, whereas
victims are passive, helpless and vulnerable (Surette, 1998).

Many viewers may not understand the justice process and are unlikely to
understand motivations and causes of criminal behavior. The criminal justice
system is portrayed as largely ineffective, with the exception of a few
"heroes" that provide justice or in some cases vengeance towards
offenders (Surette, 1998). Crime shows rarely focus on mitigating issues of
criminal behavior and are unlikely to portray offenders in a sympathetic or
even realistic fashion. On television, crime is freely chosen and based on
individual problems of the offender. Analysis of crime dramas reveal that
greed, revenge and mental illness are the basic motivations for crime and
offenders are often portrayed as "different" from the general
population (Lichter and Lichter, 1983; Maguire, 1988) Thus, viewers may
believe that all offenders are "monsters" to be feared.
Consequently, heavy viewers may perceive crime as threatening, offenders as
violent, brutal or ruthless and victims as helpless. These inaccurate
presentations, as well as the portrayal of crime as inevitable/non-preventable
may lead to an increase in the fear of crime. Nevertheless, the relationship
between fear of crime and crime show viewing is statistically weak. As a
result, it is important for future research to examine the relationship by
employing triangulated strategies such as content analysis, experimental and
survey research designs.

Police Effectiveness

The results indicate that perception of police effectiveness is not related
to media consumption. However, African-Americans and respondents who report a
high number of problems in their neighborhood are more likely to give negative
evaluations of police effectiveness. Therefore, direct experience may
influence the respondentsí attitudes toward crime problems and police
response in the neighborhood. Future research should examine how the media
influences these attitudes. The media may produce "feelings" that
local neighborhoods are "problem filled" or dangerous. For instance,
local news broadcasts may focus on highly sensational, violent and disturbing
crime that occurs in the neighborhood. It may be possible that media
presentation will affect attitudes toward the neighborhood.

In this sample, African-Americans are more likely to give poor ratings of
police effectiveness. However, it is unclear as to why or how
African-Americans gain these views. It is generally assumed that these views
are the result of discrimination. Direct experience aside, the mass media may
play a role in African-American attitudes toward police effectiveness. Future
studies should examine how the media portrayal of the criminal justice system
affects African-American [End page 120] attitudes toward police. The media may have a strong
effect on African-American criminal justice attitudes.

In conclusion, it is speculated that the majority of the publicís
knowledge about crime and justice is formed through media consumption. As a
result, it is imperative that we understand how the media influences public
attitudes. Although there are limitations within the data set and the findings
are weak, regular viewing of crime shows is related to fear of crime. However,
crime show viewing is not related to punitive attitudes or perceived police
effectiveness, while hours of television viewing and source of crime news are
not related to fear of crime, punitive attitudes or perceived police
effectiveness. Nevertheless, more research is required to determine the
relationship between media consumption and attitudes toward crime and justice.

ENDNOTES

[1] These questions are reverse coded.

[2] With the exception of police force, the six items are reverse coded.

[4] Originally, education was measured as last grade attended and divided
into eight categories which included: 0-4; 5-8; some high school; high school
graduate; some college; college graduate; and Graduate work. This was recoded
into college (0) and no college (1).

[5] The variables are reverse coded.

[6] The exception is perceived problems in neighborhood, which is only
employed as a control variable.

[7] The mean was inserted for cases with missing data. VIF and tolerance
statistics indicated no problems with multi-collinearity. Case-wise
diagnostics revealed several outliers which were excluded from the analysis.[End page 121]

REFERENCES

Albrecht, S.L., and M. Green. 1977. "The Attitudes of Blacks and
Whites toward City Services: Implications for Public Policy." In J.P.
Crecine (ed.) Financing the Metropolis: Public Policy in Urban
Economies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Baldassare, M. 1986. "The Elderly and Fear of Crime." Sociology
and Social Research 70: 218-21.

Jacob, H. 1971. "Black and White Perceptions of Justice in the
City." Law and Society Review 6: 69-89.[End page 123]

Kooistra, P.G., J.S. Mahoney and S.D. Westervelt. 1998. "The World
According to Cops." In M. Fishman and G. Cavender (eds) Entertaining
Crime: Television Reality Programs: 141-158. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.